About 99% of car-interior air samples contained at least one flame retardant considered a carcinogen or potential carcinogen

The use of flame retardants in auto interior seats pollutes the air in car cabins with the highly toxic chemicals, putting those who spend significant time in cars at the most risk, peer-reviewed research in the US has found.

Flame retardants are added to seat foam to meet regulations the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implemented in the 1970s that require automakers to include flame retardants to prevent the ignition and spreading of fires.

But the chemicals’ effectiveness was overstated at the time, and their toxicity was not understood. Flame retardants do “little to prevent fires for most uses and instead makes the blazes smokier and more toxic for victims, and especially for first responders”, said Patrick Morrison, director of the International Association of Fire Fighters’ safety division.

Most also showed organophosphate ester flame retardants, which in children are thought to cause asthma, early growth, adiposity and brain damage. Meanwhile, two of the chemicals are listed as California Proposition 65 carcinogens, and people with the highest levels of some flame retardants in their blood have about four times the risk of dying from cancer.

The average US child has lost three to five IQ points from exposure to one flame retardant used in cars and furniture, epidemiological studies have shown.

  • @Thrashy
    5•6 months ago

    Right, it’s the weight of lithium inside batteries, not the weight of the batteries overall. I think the biggest laptop batteries I’ve seen had something like 6 16850 cells, and you’d need north of 1,300 of those laptop batteries in a building before it crossed a threshold for hazardous materials.

    • @[email protected]English
      4•6 months ago

      Well, I can say I’ve seen that many laptops in one place before, but definitely not in one room (outside of a warehouse and a couple larger buildings). Most I’ve had in a small place is a couple hundred.

      • @Thrashy
        3•6 months ago

        I should clarify that the actual language in the building code is per control area rather than per building, and in most cases a control area only covers a single floor (and in some cases not even that, if there’s a sufficient fire separation between tenants sharing a building floor). I think that the amount of lithium batteries in laptops and mobile devices is a bit of a blind spot in code enforcement these days, but from a practical standpoint it’s not likely that a typical office is going to cross the threshold into hazardous-occupancy territory.

        • @[email protected]English
          3•6 months ago

          Good to know. Definitely agree, mobile device batteries really should be more controlled from a fire safety perspective, Id be surprised if most IT departments even have disposal policies for them, existing policies can also be so convoluted that it’s easier to just stuff them in a cabinet and forget they exist).

          I’ve seen laptops and phones sitting on a shelf for a year or two because disposal forms require signatures that are invalidated due to turnover, starting the process over from scratch.

          • @Thrashy
            4•6 months ago

            Don’t look at the pile of old phones and laptop batteries that’s been sitting in the trunk of my car for the last month. I tried to get rid of them at a community hazardous waste event, but the computer recyclers didn’t show, and they’re just gathering dust at the moment…